This appeal is from a judgment of $5000 recovered as damages by
Charles Keown, the son, from Fred Keown, the father, for injuries
received by the son as a result of a fall in a tub-shower
enclosure in the father's house.

A summary of the pertinent facts in this case is that appellee,
Charles Keown, age 25, whose residence is Nashville, Tennessee,
paid a visit to his father, appellant herein, in Bowling Green,
arriving at the latter's home on September 22, 1963, at around
9 a.m. Some three weeks prior to this date appellant had completely
remodeled his bathroom and, in doing so, had installed a
new bathtub with a shower attachment. Two sliding doors
of transparent glass enclosed the tub-shower.

Shortly after arriving at his father's home, the son allegedly
remarked in the presence of his father that he was going into
the bathroom and take a shower. Appellee had been in the new
bathroom on a previous occasion and had observed it but reportedly
had not used the bathtub or the shower. Marie Keown Jones,
a married daughter of appellant who with her husband was
living with her father, testified she had cleaned the bathtub
on the evening before. She had on that occasion turned the bath
mat over in the tub to dry, leaving the bottom of the mat, where
there were small suction cups, turned upward.

The bathroom was sufficiently lighted when appellee entered it
to take a shower, so that he could see without difficulty the
inside of the bathtub and the position of any article that lay
on the bottom of it. It is not claimed the light factor had any
connection with his falling. He stated he did not check the bath
mat before getting into the tub; he merely closed the glass doors
on the side of the tub and turned on the shower. Testimony was
introduced to the effect that the mat was practically new.

Appellee began to lather himself with soap. He slipped a little
in the tub but did not fall. From five to ten minutes later he
slipped again and, according to his testimony, fell and "went
through the door." Appellee was seriously injured to the extent
of 75% permanent impairment of the use of his left arm.

Appellee's deposition was taken before the trial. When asked at
that time what caused his mishap, he answered: "I just slipped.
I started to bend over and when I did I slipped and that's all
I remember until I was in the hospital." Upon the trial of his
case, on direct examination and also on cross-examination, he
gave these explanations as to how the accident happened: "I can't
tell you. * * * All I know is my feet came out from under me."
This question was put to him on direct examination: "What happened
to the bath mat?" He responded: "I don't know, sir."

After three other witnesses had testified and a recess had been
called, appellee was recalled for additional direct testimony
over the objection of counsel for the defense. We quote the following
from his testimony given at that time:

"Q. 15. Do you know what caused you to slip and fall?

A. The mat slipped.

Q. 16. What is that?

A. The mat slipped.

Q. 17. Slipped out from under you?

A. Yes, sir."

When cross-examined, this testimony was elicited by counsel for
the defense:

"Q. 18. Since I examined you, have you had a conference with your
attorney?

A. We had a talk."

Appellee contends his fall was directly caused by the slipping
of the bath mat. His argument in this connection is that, because
this mat was laid in the tub with the suction cups up, this position
created a condition of danger to anyone standing on it while
taking a shower. Furthermore, he maintains that this upside-down
placing of the mat in the tub under the circumstances exposed
him to a hidden or latent risk which culminated in the injuries
he received. He asserts the condition of the mat was unknown
to him, but that his father knew about it and should have warned
him it was unsafe.

The father-son relationship in the case at bar made the son a
social visitor and therefore a licensee in his father's home
at the time he was injured. It has been held in such a situation
that a social visitor occupied the same status as a member of
the household, that he took the premises as the owner used them,
and that he could not expect precautions would be taken for his
safety which were not likewise taken for the owner's safety.
SeeTerry v. Timberlake, Ky.,
348 S.W.2d 919.

On the occasion of appellee's taking a shower, the bathroom was
new and clean; and the lighting in it was adequate for observing
through the sliding glass doors any object that was placed in
the tub. Appellee stated that when he got in the tub he did not
notice that the cups on the mat were up. He admitted he had seen
and used at other times mats of the type under consideration.

This Court has held there is no duty to warn a person lawfully
on the premises of an occupant or owner of any defect or danger
thereon which is as well known to that person as to the occupant
or owner, or which is obvious or which should or could be observed
by that person in the exercise of ordinary care.
SeeFisher v. Hardesty, Ky.,
252 S.W.2d 877.

In the instant case appellee had only to use his eyes to ascertain
whether the cups were turned up on the mat. More than that, when
he stood barefoot on the mat it is almost unbelievable that he
could not feel the cups press against the soles of his feet.
It is our view appellee's knowledge of the condition of the mat
was equal to that of his father. Stated differently, he was in
a position to know as much as his father could have told him
concerning the correct manner in which the bath mat should be
placed in the tub.

Appellee testified he entered the tub-shower enclosure, turned
the water on, lathered himself with soap, and then slipped a
little bit but did not fall. Five or ten minutes later he slipped
and fell. Certainly, when appellee slipped a little the first
time he was put on guard that a condition existed that might
result in an accident. He should have at that time investigated
the cause of his slipping. Every person has a continuing duty
of caution for his own safety, and it is evident that appellee
himself was guilty of not using proper care for his own safety
under the facts presented.

No witness testified how the mat was turned after appellee's fall
or where it was. Every person who has ever taken a shower or
bath in the modern-day bathtub knows that the slick and smooth
surface of the tub when it comes in contact with water and soap
produces a slippery condition that requires carefulness on the
part of the bather. It has been said that more accidents take
place in a bathroom than in other portion of the house.

We conclude there is no showing that appellant violated any duty
owed appellee as a social visitor in his home. The motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been sustained.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed with direction to enter a
new one for appellant.